RFR: 8260555: Change the default TIMEOUT_FACTOR from 4 to 1 [v5]

[Phil Race]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 05:51:38 GMT, Phil Race <prr at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Leo Korinth has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
>> 
>>   update testing.md, remove makefile link, fix bad text
>
> test/jdk/javax/sound/sampled/Clip/AudioContentHandlers.java line 50:
> 
>> 48:  * @summary URL.getContent() should return SoundClip for supported formats
>> 49:  * @run main/othervm/timeout=480 -Xmx128m AudioContentHandlers
>> 50:  */
> 
> I've looked at our CI and this test has run 80,000 times and only 10 of those have gone > 120 seconds (and only 2 > 145 seconds)
> Perhaps I'd see similar for other tests. But I need to hear test-specific reasons for the test-specific boost of 4x from what  I think (120) is the default to 480.
> Otherwise I'd prefer no change, or a small change, by maybe 1.5x not 4x, and we'll adjust the test when we see evidence that it is not enough.

> @prrace the change maintains the same absolute timeout value for those tests. Before the default of 120 was multiplied by the timeoutFactor of 4 to given 480. Now the value 480 is multiplied by the timeoutFactor of 1 to give 480. And IIRC Leo only did that for tests that demonstrated a timeout with the new default settings (120*1). It is not practical for Leo to investigate every changed test to see if it could get away with a value between 120 and 480. The change just maintains the status quo. Test owners are free to investigate further if they think it worth fine tuning these values.

I don't agree.
If you are going to modify individual tests, you need to demonstrate what you did for that test is justified or don't do it.

I am also questioning whether such a time out was demonstrated for this test.
I've searched the entire history of CI jobs and I don't see where Leo had such a timeout of this test.
I can send you my query off-line so you can check it. Maybe it is incomplete.

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26749#discussion_r2294258341